Stanway: An Élite Burial Site at Camulodunum 0907764355, 9780907764359

Table of contents :
List of Figures viii
List of Tables xiii
Acknowledgements xvi
List of Contributors xvii
Summary xviii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Stanway site 1
History of the excavations 1
Simplified chronology and key features 7
Explanation of the site codes and small find numbers 14
Introduction to the Late Iron Age and Roman pottery in this report 14
Definition of terms used in the report 15
CHAPTER 2: FEATURES AND FINDS PRE-DATING THE MIDDLE IRON AGE FARMSTEAD
The earliest occupation 16
The earlier prehistoric pottery (Nigel Brown) 17
The scatter of heat-affected stone across the site 18
The worked flint (Hazel Martingell) 21
CHAPTER 3: THE MIDDLE IRON AGE FARMSTEAD
The farmstead enclosure (Enclosure 2) 26
The currency bars (Richard Hingley) 33
The structural clay 36
The loomweights 38
The other objects from Enclosures 1 and 2 45
The latest material from Enclosure 2 47
The Early and Middle Iron Age pottery (Paul R. Sealey) 48
Palaeochannel CF52 and its finds 66
CHAPTER 4: THE FUNERARY SITE
The funerary enclosures 69
Funerary Enclosure 1 69
Funerary Enclosure 3 71
Funerary Enclosure 4 74
Funerary Enclosure 5 81
The pyre-site and ?mortuary enclosures 85
Pyre-site BF1/BF16 85
?Mortuary enclosure BF32 90
?Mortuary enclosure CF43–46 97
The chambers 101
Chamber AF25 101
Chamber BF6 104
Chamber BF24 127
Chamber CF42 142
Pits with pyre debris 157
Pit BF17 157
Pit CF7 160
Pit with broken funerary goods 162
Pit AF48 162
The cremation burials 167
Cremation burial AF18 167
Examination of a bag of ?verdigris from AF18 (S. La Niece and C. R. Cartwright) 169
The Warrior’s burial BF64 170
The Inkwell burial BF67 197
The Doctor's burial CF47 201
The Brooches burial CF72 254
The Mirror burial CF115 260
Cremation burial CF403 262
The shaft or pit CF23 265
The slot or trench CF96 266
CHAPTER 5: THE SPECIALISTS' REPORTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The Late Iron Age and Roman pottery fabrics (Stephen Benfield) 268
The pots from funerary contexts and pyre debris in pits (Valery Rigby) 271
The Late Iron Age and Roman pottery from the enclosure ditches and the mortuary enclosures BF32 and CF43–6 (Stephen Benfield) 274
The potters' stamps on terra rubra,terra nigra and terra nigra-type wares (Valery Rigby) 289
The amphoras (Paul R. Sealey) 297
The samian (G. B. Dannell) 305
The graffiti from the chamber BF6 (Paul R. Sealey) 307
The brooches (Nina Crummy) 314
The metal vessels (Nina Crummy) 320
Analysis of the currency bars, grave goods and pyre debris (Sarah Paynter) 327
The Iron Age and Roman coins (John A. Davies) 338
The glass vessels (H. E. M. Cool) 340
Textiles (John Peter Wild) 347
A scientific examination of the textile impressions in iron corrosion products on surgical instruments CF47.30 and CF47.35 (N. D. Meeks and C. R. Cartwright) 350
The gaming board in CF47: the remains as found, possible reconstructions, and post-depositional movements (Philip Crummy) 352
The Doctor’s game – new light on the history of ancient board games (Ulrich Schädler) 359
The salt briquetage (Nina Crummy) 375
The environmental and faunal remains
The cremated human remains (S. A. Mays) 377
The faunal remains (Alec Wade and A. J. Legge) 382
The plant macrofossils (Peter Murphy and Val Fryer) 384
The wood and leather remains (Anne-Maria Bojko and Nina Crummy) 388
Palynological analysis of the organic material lodged in the spout of the strainer bowl (Patricia E. J. Wiltshire) 394
The palynological analysis of the palaeoturf forming the collapsed mound in the chamber CF42 (Patricia E. J. Wiltshire) 398
CHAPTER 6: EXCAVATIONS ON SITE D IN 2002–3
Introduction 400
The excavation 400
The cremation burials 402
Pits with pyre-related debris 410
Pits with charcoal-rich fill but no cremated bone, pottery or other artefacts 413
Other features 416
Specialists' reports
Discussion of the Late Iron Age and Roman pottery from Site D (Stephen Benfield and Valery Rigby) 418
The cremated bone from Site D (S. A. Mays) 418
The charred plant macrofossils and other remains from Site D (Val Fryer) 420
The worked flint from Site D (Hazel Martingell) 422
CHAPTER 7: ASPECTS OF THE STANWAY CEMETERY
Introduction 423
Aspects of the physical remains 424
Symmetry and organisation of the funerary enclosures 424
Chambers: structure, mounds and broken grave goods 424
Pyres and pits with pyre debris 426
?Mortuary enclosures 427
Cremation burials: covers, depths, character and presence or absence of a service 427
Grave goods: social status and function 428
Broken funerary goods as indicators of ritual 430
Weights of the cremated human bone 433
Cremated animal bone: horse and other remains 434
Residual pottery: indicator of early episodes of pot-breaking? 434
Sequence and chronology 435
The Middle Iron Age farmstead 435
The funerary enclosures and associated contexts 436
Refined sequence and dating for Enclosures 3, 4 and 5 438
Stanway in local and wider contexts 444
Familial relationships between the dead 444
The identities of the 'Doctor' and the 'Warrior' (Nina Crummy) 444
Similar funerary sites 447
Continuity and the Catuvellauni 455
BIBLIOGRAPHY 457
INDEX (Nina Crummy) 485

Citation preview

STANWAY: AN ÉLITE BURIAL SITE AT CAMULODUNUM

STANWAY: AN ÉLITE BURIAL SITE AT CAMULODUNUM BY

Philip Crummy, Stephen Benfield, Nina Crummy, Valery Rigby and Donald Shimmin

With contributions by Anne-Maria Bojko, Nigel Brown, C.R. Cartwright, H.E.M. Cool, G.B. Dannell, John A. Davies, Brenda Dickinson, Val Fryer, Richard Hingley, Ralph Jackson, Anthony J. Legge, Hazel Martingell, S.A. Mays, N.D. Meeks, Peter Murphy, Susan La Niece, Keith Oak, Sarah Paynter, Ulrich Schädler, Paul R. Sealey, Alec Wade, John Peter Wild and Patricia E.J. Wiltshire

Britannia Monograph Series No. 24 Published by the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies Senate House Malet Street London WC1E 7HU 2007

BRITANNIA MONOGRAPH SERIES NO. 24 Published by the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies Senate House, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HU

This monograph was published with the aid of a grant from English Heritage

Copies may be obtained from the Secretary of the Roman Society

© Copyright Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies 2007

British Library Catalogue in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978 0 907764 35 9

Front cover illustration: Doctor’s burial CF47: Lisa Hepi excavating the game board Back cover illustration: the game board as uncovered (apart from the corner-piece in the top right-hand corner, which had been removed for conservation and then temporarily replaced for the photograph)

Printed by 4Word Ltd, Bristol BS13 7TT Printed in England

CONTENTS Page viii xiii xvi xvii xviii

List of Figures List of Tables Acknowledgements List of Contributors Summary CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The Stanway site History of the excavations Simplified chronology and key features Explanation of the site codes and small find numbers Introduction to the Late Iron Age and Roman pottery in this report Definition of terms used in the report

1 1 7 14 14 15

CHAPTER 2: FEATURES AND FINDS PRE-DATING THE MIDDLE IRON AGE FARMSTEAD The The The The

earliest occupation earlier prehistoric pottery (Nigel Brown) scatter of heat-affected stone across the site worked flint (Hazel Martingell)

16 17 18 21

CHAPTER 3: THE MIDDLE IRON AGE FARMSTEAD The farmstead enclosure (Enclosure 2) The currency bars (Richard Hingley) The structural clay The loomweights The other objects from Enclosures 1 and 2 The latest material from Enclosure 2 The Early and Middle Iron Age pottery (Paul R. Sealey) Palaeochannel CF52 and its finds CHAPTER 4: THE FUNERARY SITE The funerary enclosures Funerary Enclosure 1 Funerary Enclosure 3 Funerary Enclosure 4 Funerary Enclosure 5 The pyre-site and ?mortuary enclosures Pyre-site BF1/BF16 ?Mortuary enclosure BF32 ?Mortuary enclosure CF43–46 The chambers Chamber AF25 v

26 33 36 38 45 47 48 66

69 69 71 74 81 85 85 90 97 101 101

vi

STANWAY: AN ÉLITE BURIAL SITE AT CAMULODUNUM

Chamber BF6 Chamber BF24 Chamber CF42 Pits with pyre debris Pit BF17 Pit CF7 Pit with broken funerary goods Pit AF48 The cremation burials Cremation burial AF18 Examination of a bag of ?verdigris from AF18 (S. La Niece and C.R. Cartwright) The Warrior’s burial BF64 The Inkwell burial BF67 The Doctor's burial CF47 The Brooches burial CF72 The Mirror burial CF115 Cremation burial CF403 The shaft or pit CF23 The slot or trench CF96

104 127 142 157 157 160 162 162 167 167 169 170 197 201 254 260 262 265 266

CHAPTER 5: THE SPECIALISTS' REPORTS AND DISCUSSIONS The Late Iron Age and Roman pottery fabrics (Stephen Benfield) The pots from funerary contexts and pyre debris in pits (Valery Rigby) The Late Iron Age and Roman pottery from the enclosure ditches and the mortuary enclosures BF32 and CF43–6 (Stephen Benfield) The potters' stamps on terra rubra,terra nigra and terra nigra-type wares (Valery Rigby) The amphoras (Paul R. Sealey) The samian (G.B. Dannell) The graffiti from the chamber BF6 (Paul R. Sealey) The brooches (Nina Crummy) The metal vessels (Nina Crummy) Analysis of the currency bars, grave goods and pyre debris (Sarah Paynter) The Iron Age and Roman coins (John A. Davies) The glass vessels (H.E.M. Cool) Textiles (John Peter Wild) A scientific examination of the textile impressions in iron corrosion products on surgical instruments CF47.30 and CF47.35 (N.D. Meeks and C.R. Cartwright) The gaming board in CF47: the remains as found, possible reconstructions, and post-depositional movements (Philip Crummy) The Doctor’s game – new light on the history of ancient board games (Ulrich Schädler) The salt briquetage (Nina Crummy)

268 271 274 289 297 305 307 314 320 327 338 340 347 350 352 359 375

The environmental and faunal remains The cremated human remains (S.A. Mays) 377 The faunal remains (Alec Wade and A.J. Legge) 382 The plant macrofossils (Peter Murphy and Val Fryer) 384 The wood and leather remains (Anne-Maria Bojko and Nina Crummy) 388 Palynological analysis of the organic material lodged in the spout of the strainer bowl (Patricia E.J. Wiltshire) 394 The palynological analysis of the palaeoturf forming the collapsed mound in the chamber CF42 (Patricia E.J. Wiltshire) 398

CONTENTS

vii

CHAPTER 6: EXCAVATIONS ON SITE D IN 2002–3 Introduction The excavation The cremation burials Pits with pyre-related debris Pits with charcoal-rich fill but no cremated bone, pottery or other artefacts Other features

400 400 402 410 413 416

Specialists' reports Discussion of the Late Iron Age and Roman pottery from Site D (Stephen Benfield and Valery Rigby) The cremated bone from Site D (S.A. Mays) The charred plant macrofossils and other remains from Site D (Val Fryer) The worked flint from Site D (Hazel Martingell)

418 418 420 422

CHAPTER 7: ASPECTS OF THE STANWAY CEMETERY Introduction Aspects of the physical remains Symmetry and organisation of the funerary enclosures Chambers: structure, mounds and broken grave goods Pyres and pits with pyre debris ?Mortuary enclosures Cremation burials: covers, depths, character and presence or absence of a service Grave goods: social status and function Broken funerary goods as indicators of ritual Weights of the cremated human bone Cremated animal bone: horse and other remains Residual pottery: indicator of early episodes of pot-breaking? Sequence and chronology The Middle Iron Age farmstead The funerary enclosures and associated contexts Refined sequence and dating for Enclosures 3, 4 and 5 Stanway in local and wider contexts Familial relationships between the dead The identities of the ‘Doctor’ and the ‘Warrior’ (Nina Crummy) Similar funerary sites Continuity and the Catuvellauni

423 424 424 424 426 427 427 428 430 433 434 434 435 435 436 438 444 444 444 447 455

BIBLIOGRAPHY

457

INDEX (Nina Crummy)

485

LIST OF FIGURES Page Frontispiece

Impression of the graveside ceremony for the Warrior’s burial. Image © Peter Froste and Colchester Archaeological Trust.

Fig. 1

The Stanway site in relation to Camulodunum and the Roman town and its regional location. Overall site plan. between The Stanway site in relation to the Iron Age and Roman archaeology at Gosbecks. Site areas (A–E) and areas of excavation. Phase 1 and earlier. Phase 2: second half of the 1st century B.C. Phase 3: mid 1st century A.D. Phase 4: mid 1st century A.D. Stanway: aerial view of cropmarks. Features pre-dating Enclosure 2: sections and profiles. Neolithic and Bronze Age pottery. Distribution of burnt stones by weight. ?Iron Age worked flints. Enclosure 2 ditch: sections and plan showing location of currency bar hoard and pit CF415. Boundary ditch CF137/AF59: sections; Enclosure 2 ditch AF32: section; Enclosure 2 pits: sections. Enclosure 2 pits: sections and profiles. Interpretative plan of the layout of Enclosure 2. Pits outside Enclosure 2: sections and profiles. Iron currency bars from the Enclosure 2 ditch. Enclosure 2 ditch CF6: iron currency bars in situ. Loomweights from pit CF21. Loomweights from pit CF21. Loomweights from pits AF22 and AF38 and structural clay from pit CF21. Finds of stone (CF171.1) and iron (CF250.1–2) from Enclosure 2. Early and Middle Iron Age pottery: numbers 1–26. Middle Iron Age pottery: numbers 27–55. Iron spearheads from the palaeochannel. Enclosure 1 ditch: sections. Enclosure 1: copper-alloy brooch spring fragments from the ploughsoil. Enclosure 3 entrance: plan, ditch sections with fragment of glass vessel BF4.1 from the ditch and pit profiles. Enclosure 4 ditch: sections, pit profiles and pottery counter from the enclosure ditch. Enclosure 5 ditch: sections and objects of copper alloy and iron from the enclosure ditches.

Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Fig. 10 Fig. 11 Fig. 12 Fig. 13 Fig. 14 Fig. 15 Fig. 16 Fig. 17 Fig. 18 Fig. 19 Fig. 20 Fig. 21 Fig. 22 Fig. 23 Fig. 24 Fig. 25 Fig. 26 Fig. 27 Fig. 28 Fig. 29 Fig. 30 Fig. 31 Fig. 32

viii

2 2–3 3 4 8 9 10 11 12 16 18 19 22 27 28 29 31 32 34 35 39 41 42 46 64 65 67 70 71 72 74 84

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 33 Fig. 34 Fig. 35 Fig. 36 Fig. 37 Fig. 38 Fig. 39 Fig. 40 Fig. 41 Fig. 42 Fig. 43 Fig. 44 Fig. 45 Fig. 46 Fig. 47 Fig. 48 Fig. 49 Fig. 50 Fig. 51 Fig. 52 Fig. 53 Fig. 54 Fig. 55 Fig. 56 Fig. 57 Fig. 58 Fig. 59 Fig. 60 Fig. 61 Fig. 62 Fig. 63 Fig. 64 Fig. 65 Fig. 66 Fig. 67

Pyre-site BF1/BF16: objects of copper alloy (BF1.1–4 and BL.1–2) and iron (BF1.5). Enclosure 4 ?mortuary enclosure BF32, viewed from the south. ?Mortuary enclosure BF32: plan, ditch sections, pit profiles, and copper-alloy objects and briquetage (BF30.2). ?Mortuary enclosure CF43–46: plan, ditch and pit sections, and briquetage sherd. Enclosure 5 ?mortuary enclosure CF43–6, viewed from the north. Chamber AF25, half-section, viewed from the south-east. Chamber AF25: plan and section. Chamber AF25: pottery vessels and copper-alloy find. Chamber BF6, half-section, viewed from the south. Chamber BF6, fully excavated, viewed from the south. Chamber BF6 and pyre site BF1/BF16: plan. Chamber BF6: sections and profiles. Chamber BF6 and pyre site: BF1/BF16: plan showing location of small finds and decayed wooden planks. Chamber BF6: plan showing extent of collapsed mound and location of finds in mound material. Chamber BF6: plan showing location of cremated bone, decayed wood, and small finds on the chamber floor. Chamber BF6: plan showing location of sherds from pottery vessels BF6.1–5. Chamber BF6: plan showing location of sherds from pottery vessels BF6.6–12 and BF6.20–21. Chamber BF6: plan showing location of sherds from pottery vessels BF6.13–19. Chamber BF6: plan showing location of sherds from amphoras BF6.22–3. Chamber BF6: plan showing location of cremated bone, decayed wood, and small finds from above the chamber floor. Chamber BF6: detail plan of roof timbers. Chamber BF6: pottery vessels and amphoras. Chamber BF6: objects of copper alloy (BF6.24–29 and BF6.31–33) and iron (BF6.30). Chamber BF24: plan and section. Chamber BF24: isometric plan of chamber pit with traces of wood plank lining and nails. Chamber BF24: vertical finds distributions plotted against section for bone and pottery. Chamber BF24, fully excavated, viewed from the north. Chamber BF24: plan showing location of sherds from pottery vessels BF24.1–4 and BF24.5–7. Chamber BF24: plan showing location of sherds from pottery vessels BF24.8–11 and BF24.12–16. Chamber BF24: plan showing location of sherds from pottery vessels BF24.17–18 and BF24.19–21. Chamber BF24: pottery vessels BF24.1–22 and glass vessel BF24.23. Chamber BF24: glass beads (BF24.24a, BF24.24c–d), silver collars (BF24.25) and horn plaques (BF24.26a–c). Chamber CF42: plan of chamber pit after excavation. Chamber CF42: plan showing remains of wooden chamber and nails. Chamber CF42: isometric plan of the chamber pit showing the positions of the nails and the traces of decayed wood.

ix

89 91 96 99 99 101 102 103 105 105 106 107 108 109 111 112 113 114 115 116 118 124 125 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 138 141 143 144 144

x

Fig. 68 Fig. 69 Fig. 70 Fig. 71 Fig. 72 Fig. 73

Fig. 74 Fig. 75 Fig. 76 Fig. 77 Fig. 78 Fig. 79 Fig. 80 Fig. 81 Fig. 82 Fig. 83 Fig. 84 Fig. 85 Fig. 86 Fig. 87 Fig. 88 Fig. 89 Fig. 90

Fig. 91

Fig. 92 Fig. 93 Fig. 94 Fig. 95 Fig. 96 Fig. 97 Fig. 98

STANWAY: AN ÉLITE BURIAL SITE AT CAMULODUNUM

Chamber CF42: sections. 145 Chamber CF42: plan showing remains of wooden chamber and nails. 146 CF42: plans showing location of sherds from pottery vessels CF42.1–9. 147 Chamber CF42: plans showing location of residual sherds from pottery vessels 42.a–g and location of sherds from glass vessels CF42.11–13. 148 Chamber CF42: plan showing location of small finds CF42.14–17. 149 Chamber CF42: pottery vessels CF42.1 and CF42.6–9, glass vessels CF42.11–12, glass gaming counter (CF42.14), copper-alloy spoon (CF42.15), studs with glass head and metal shank (CF42.16a–c), and iron object (CF42.17). 155 Pit with pyre debris BF17: finds of iron (BF17.1 and BF17.3) and copper alloy (BF17.2). 159 Pit with pyre debris CF7: plan showing location of finds and section, pottery vessel, copper-alloy brooch (CF7.2), and iron object (CF7.3). 161 Pit with broken funerary goods AF48: plan showing location of finds. 163 Pit with broken funerary goods AF48: pottery vessel AF48.2, and objects of iron (AF48.3a–d), and copper alloy (AF48.4). 164 Pit with broken funerary goods AF48: detailed illustration of remains of ?box AF48.3. 166 Cremation burial AF18: plan showing location of finds, pottery vessel, and find of bag of ?verdigris. 168 Warrior’s burial BF64: plan showing location of finds. between 171–2 Warrior’s burial: BF64 pottery vessels BF64.1–14, and amphora (BF64.15). 174 Detail of crane pot BF64.14. 175 Warrior’s burial BF64: glass vessels BF64.16–18, copper-alloy brooches BF64.19–20, maker’s name stamp on the Nertomarus brooch (BF64.19). 177 Warrior’s burial BF64: copper armlet BF64.21 and glass bead BF64.22. 179 Warrior’s burial BF64: shield boss BF64.23a. 182 Warrior’s burial BF64: ?part of shield boss BF64.23b, iron spearhead BF64.24a, and iron bands with fragments of wooden shaft BF64.24b. 183 Warrior’s burial BF64: copper-alloy jug BF64.25 and handled basin BF64.26. 185 Warrior’s burial BF64: fragment probably from a copper-alloy vessel BF64.27. 186 Warrior’s burial BF64: glass gaming counters BF64.28. 187 Warrior’s burial BF64: copper-alloy drop handles BF64.29a–b and handle attachments BF24.29c–d from the gaming board with part of the wooden board itself. 188 Warrior’s burial BF64: copper-alloy junction bindings BF64.29e–f and corner binding BF64.29g from the gaming board with part of the wooden board itself. 189 Warrior’s burial BF64: iron fittings from box (north-west area of burial pit) BF64.30a–d and 30g. 192 Warrior’s burial BF64: iron fittings from box (south-west area of burial pit) BF64.31a–b. 194 Warrior’s burial BF64: iron fittings from box (south-west area of burial pit) BF64.31c–d. 195 Warrior’s burial BF64: miscellaneous metal objects of copper alloy BF64.32–34 and iron BF64.35. 196 Inkwell burial BF67: plan and profile. 198 Inkwell burial BF67: pottery vessels BF67.1–2, copper-alloy brooch BF67.3, and selected decorated copper-alloy studs and sheet BF67.4a, c and f. 200 Doctor’s burial CF47: plan showing location of finds. 203

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 99 Fig. 100 Fig. 101

Fig. 102 Fig. 103 Fig. 104 Fig. 105 Fig. 106 Fig. 107 Fig. 108 Fig. 109 Fig. 110 Fig. 111 Fig. 112 Fig. 113 Fig. 114 Fig. 115 Fig. 116 Fig. 117 Fig. 118 Fig. 119 Fig. 120 Fig. 121 Fig. 122

Fig. 123

Fig. 124 Fig. 125 Fig. 126 Fig. 127 Fig. 128

xi

Doctor’s burial CF47: plan showing burial pit after excavation with location of profiles 1–4, and plan locating detail Figs 100–1. 204 Doctor’s burial CF47: detail plan of finds at west end of grave. 205 Doctor’s burial CF47: detail plan of objects stacked on north side of grave, copper-alloy saucepan (CF47.21), samian bowl (CF47.1) and copper-alloy strainer bowl (CF47.22), showing remains of oak cover (CF47.41) (above), and pottery flagon (CF47.12) and remains of decorated wooden ?tray (CF47.25) (below). 206 Doctor’s burial CF47: plan showing the locations of the organic remains on the upper surfaces of objects at the west end of the grave. between 206–7 Doctor’s burial CF47: plan showing the locations of the organic remains on the lower surfaces of objects at the west end of the grave. between 206–7 Doctor’s burial CF47: profiles 1–4 through grave. 208 Doctor’s burial CF47: stages 3–4 in the deposition of the medical implements and rods on and around the gaming board. 209 Doctor’s burial CF47: stages 5–6 in the deposition of the medical implements and rods on and around the gaming board. 210 Doctor’s burial CF47: reconstruction of grave and the subsequent collapse of the wooden cover and grave goods. 211 Doctor’s burial CF47: samian bowl CF47.1 and potter’s stamp, pottery vessels CF47.2–13, and amphora CF47.14. 214 Doctor’s burial CF47: copper-alloy brooches CF47.15 and 17, ring fragment CF47.16, and jet bead CF47.18. 216 Doctor’s burial CF47: glass gaming counters CF47.19b. 218 Doctor’s burial CF47: copper-alloy corner CF47.20a and hinges CF47.20b–c from the gaming board. 219 Doctor’s burial CF47: copper-alloy saucepan CF47.21. 221 Doctor’s burial CF47: copper-alloy strainer bowl CF47.22. 222 Doctor’s burial CF47: the copper-alloy strainer bowl in situ. 223 Doctor’s burial CF47: iron rods CF47.23a–c. 225 Doctor’s burial CF47: iron rod CF47.23d and copper-alloy rods CF47.23e–f. 226 Doctor’s burial CF47: copper-alloy rods CF47.23g–h. 227 Doctor’s burial CF47: the rods and rings in situ. 228 Doctor’s burial CF47: copper-alloy rings CF47.24a–h, and selection of decorated copper-alloy studs CF47.25a-f from the ?tray. 230 Doctor’s burial CF47: selection of decorated copper-alloy sheet fragments CF47.25g–i from the ?tray. 234 Doctor’s burial CF47: iron scalpels CF47.26 and 27, iron saw with composite handle CF47.28, and iron knife CF47.39. 237 Doctor’s burial CF47: copper-alloy combined sharp and blunt hook (double-ended retractor) CF47.29, iron combined sharp and blunt hook (double-ended retractor) CF47.30. 239 Doctor’s burial CF47: copper-alloy ?retractor CF47.31, copper-alloy smooth-jawed fixation forceps CF47.32, and iron forceps/ tweezers CF47.33. 241 Doctor’s burial CF47: iron handled needle CF47.34–36, copper-alloy scoop probe CF47.37, and copper-alloy handle CF47.38. 243 Doctor’s burial CF47. 246 Doctor’s burial CF47: vertical view of the gaming board and counters, with some of the surgical instruments, in situ. 247 Doctor’s burial CF47: the surgical instruments. 248 Brooches burial CF72: plan and profile. 255

xii

Fig. 129

Fig. 130 Fig. 131 Fig. 132 Fig. 133

Fig. 134 Fig. 135 Fig. 136 Fig. 137 Fig. 138 Fig. 139 Fig. 140 Fig. 141 Fig. 142 Fig. 143 Fig. 144 Fig. 145 Fig. 146 Fig. 147 Fig. 148 Fig. 149 Fig. 150 Fig. 151

Fig. 152 Fig. 153

Fig. 154 Fig. 155

Fig. 156 Fig. 157

STANWAY: AN ÉLITE BURIAL SITE AT CAMULODUNUM

Brooches burial CF72: pottery vessels CF72.1–3, glass pyxis CF72.4, copperalloy brooches F72.5–10, glass bead CF72.11, iron shank with glass bead CF72.12, iron knife blade CF72.13, and iron ?nail shank CF72.14. 256 Brooches burial CF72: annotated photograph showing shattered edge of flagon and line of possible subsoiler damage. 259 Brooches burial CF72. 259 Mirror burial CF115: pottery vessels CF115.1–2 and mirror fragment CF115.4. 261 Cremation burial CF403: plan and profile, pottery vessels CF403.1–2, and interpretative plan showing presumed movement of a section of broken platter. 263 Cremation burial CF403. 264 Shaft or pit CF23: section and plan. 265 Slot or trench CF96: section and rim from pottery flagon. 266 Slot or trench CF96, viewed from the north. 267 Distribution of pottery vessels in the ditches. Pottery vessels from the ditches of Enclosure 1 and Enclosures 3–4: Pots 2–58. 278 Pottery vessels from the ditches of Enclosure 4: Pots 59–78. 282 Pottery vessels from the ditches of Enclosure 4: Pots 79–101. 284 Pottery vessels from the ditches of Enclosure 4: Pots 102–110. 285 Pottery vessels from the ditches of Enclosure 4: Pots 111–115 and amphora Pot 128. 286 Pottery vessels from the ditches of Enclosure 5: Pots 132–143 and amphora Pot 146. 287 Potters’ stamps on terra rubra, terra nigra and terra nigra-type wares. 292 Graffiti on pottery vessels from the chamber BF6: Pots BF6.1, 4, 6 and 8 (upper surface). 308 Graffiti on pottery vessels from the chamber BF6: Pots BF6.8 (base), 13, 15 and 23. 309 Coins: AF17.1, CF5.1, BF39.2, BF30.3, CF96.1–2. 339 The amber glass bowl BF64.16 from the Warrior’s burial. 342 SEM images showing textile remains on the instruments CF47.30 and CF47.35 from the Doctor’s burial CF47. 351 Above: The counters and the remains of the gaming board in relation to a hypothetical 8 × 12 grid of 13/4 unciae squares. Below: The layout of the counters in relation to the same grid after allowing for a slight gap between the two halves of the board when folded out. 353 Four possible arrangements of the counters on an 8 × 12 grid of squares before any post-depositional movements had taken place. 354 Above: The counters and the remains of the gaming board in relation to a hypothetical 13 × 9 grid of squares whose width is equal to the width of the hypothetical 8 × 12 grid shown in FIG. 151. Below: The remains of the gaming board as found in relation to a hypothetical 9 × 13 grid of lines exactly 15/8 unciae apart. 355 Two possible arrangements of the counters on an 9 × 13 grid of squares before any post-depositional movements had taken place. 359 Doctor’s burial CF47 strainer bowl: the proportions of artemisia to ‘bee flower’ pollen and that of probable adventive pollen from the plug of organic debris. 394 Doctor’s burial CF47 strainer bowl: the proportions of various bee flower pollens from the plug of organic debris. 394 Chamber CF42: proportions of various palynological taxa present in the turf (turf 1) from the mound. 397

Fig. 158 Fig. 159 Fig. 160 Fig. 161 Fig. 162 Fig. 163 Fig. 164 Fig. 165 Fig. 166 Fig. 167 Fig. 168 Fig. 169 Fig. 170 Fig. 171 Fig. 172 Fig. 173 Fig. 174

Fig. 175 Fig. 176

Site D: plan. Cremation burial DF1: plan and section and pottery vessel DF1.1. Cremation burial DF26: plan and section and pottery vessels DF26.1–3. Cremation burial DF28: plan and profile. Cremation burial DF28. Cremation burial DF28: pottery vessels DF28.1–4, copper-alloy brooches DF28.5–7, and moulded sheet DF28.8. Pit with pyre debris DF3: plan and section. Pit with pyre debris DF7: copper-alloy brooch DF7.1. Area D: pit sections and profiles. Area D: ditch DF29 section and pit sections and profiles. Area D: early Mesolithic microlith. Conjectural reconstruction of chamber BF6. Speculative sequence and dates for the development of Enclosures 3–5. The funerary enclosures at Stanway in comparison with sites in Colchester and Verulamium. The Gosbecks temple site. King Harry Lane cemetery. Above: plan. Below: detailed plan of grave 41 from the same cemetery. Above: distribution of the Middle and Late La Tène chariot burials in northern Gaul. Below: distribution of Late La Tène burials in northern Gaul which contained Italian imports. Plans and locations of the aristocratic cemeteries at Avaux and Avançon in the Champagne region of France. Grave 3 at Vieux-les-Asfeld in the Champagne region of France.

401 403 404 406 407 408 410 412 414 417 422 425 442 447 449 451

452 453 454

L I S T O F TA B L E S Table Table Table Table

1 2 3 4

Table Table Table Table Table Table

5 6 7 8 9 10

Table Table Table Table Table

11 12 13 14 15

Fabric codes and names for the Roman, Gallo-Belgic and Gaulish wares. List of illustrated Neolithic pottery. Heat-affected stones and the dating evidence for them. Weights and approximate percentage of stone types from pits AF24, AF76, and CF175. Worked flint catalogue. Totals of worked flint types. Distribution of structural clay. The Middle Iron Age loomweights. Summary of other loomweight fragments. Incidence of Early and Middle Iron Age pottery by sherd count and sherd weight by phase. Phase 1 sherd count and sherd weight in grammes by fabric. Phase 2 sherd count and sherd weight by fabric. Phase 3 sherd count and sherd weight by fabric. Summary of the stratified pottery from the Enclosure 1 ditch by type. Details of the broken Late Iron Age pots in chamber AF25. xiii

Page 15 18 20 20 22 25 36 40 40 49 50 51 53 53 53

xiv

Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table

STANWAY: AN ÉLITE BURIAL SITE AT CAMULODUNUM

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Table 25 Table 26 Table 27 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Table 38 Table 39 Table 40

Table 41 Table 42

Table Table Table Table Table Table

43 44 45 46 47 48

Table 49 Table 50 Table 51 Table 52 Table 53

Vertical distribution of Middle Iron Age pottery sherds in chamber AF25. Stratified and unstratified Middle Iron Age pottery from Enclosures 3–5. Stratified sherd count and sherd weight by fabric from Enclosures 3–5. Decorated rim sherds. Decorated body sherds. Details of sherds with black residues. Fragments of iron nails from the ditch of Enclosure 4. Iron nails from the enclosure ditch of Enclosure 5. Heat-affected copper alloy and amorphous slaggy iron with traces of copper-alloy from the pyre-site BF1/BF16 and the surrounding area. Small fragments of copper-alloy, the majority heat-affected, from the ditch of the ?mortuary enclosure BF32. Iron nail fragments from the ditch of the ?mortuary enclosure BF32. Small fragments of copper-alloy, the majority heat-affected, from the pits BF42 and BF62 inside the ditch of the ?mortuary enclosure BF32. Iron nails from the ditch of the ?mortuary enclosure CF43–6. Heat-affected copper alloy from BF6. Iron nails from BF6. Nails from the chamber BF24. Nails from the chamber CF42. Heat-affected and resolidified copper alloy from BF17. Fragments of iron nails from BF67. Typological groupings of the rods in CF47. The nails in the oak grave cover (CF47.41). Stanway pottery other than amphoras from the enclosure ditches and pyre-sites. Minimum number of broken pots represented in the enclosure ditches and ditches of the ?mortuary enclosures. Approximate number of identified examples of vessel types from the ?mortuary enclosures and enclosure ditches at Stanway. The incidence of pottery forms (other than amphoras) from the ?mortuary enclosures and enclosure ditches at Stanway and Sheepen, Colchester. Estimated vessel equivalence (eve) as a percentage of identified vessels. Comparison of selected pottery forms from Stanway ?mortuary enclosure and ditch assemblages, and Roman assemblages from the Colchester fortress and the early colonia. Amphoras from Stanway by minimum vessel number count. Plain samian. The graffiti at Stanway Iron Age graffiti by vessel type (Stanway excluded). Brooches from Enclosures 1–5. Analytical results for the slag inclusions in the fragmented currency bar CF6.2, as determined by EDS, normalised wt%. Results summary for glass objects. Results summary of the metal objects and glass brooch settings from BF64, BF67, CF7, CF42, CF47, CF72 and CF115. Results summary of the metal objects from Enclosure 3 chamber BF6, the pyre-site BF1/F16 and pit BF17. Results summary of the metal objects from the contexts associated with the ?mortuary enclosure BF32 in Enclosure 4. Summary of the rim diameters of pillar-moulded and tubular-rimmed bowls from Colchester.

53 54 54 57 58 60 75 82 86 92 92 94 98 121 121 136 152 159 199 224 253 276 277 277

280 283

288 297 306 307 311 314 327 330 332 337 337 341

LIST OF TABLES

Table 54 Table 55 Table Table Table Table Table

56 57 58 59 60

Table 61 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table

62 63 64 65 66 67 68

Table 69 Table 70 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table

71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78

Table 79 Table 80 Table 81

A comparison of the colours of the Stanway unguent bottles with those of tubular unguent bottles at various mid 1st-century sites in Britain. Sets of gaming counters associated with cremation and inhumation burials in Britain. Sets/groups of gaming counters from non-funerary contexts. The salt briquetage – summary of the evidence. Average sherd weight of salt briquetage from some Essex sites. Faunal remains. Plant macrofossils and other remains from Late Neolithic and ?Early Iron Age contexts. Charred plant macrofossils and other remains from Middle Iron Age to Late Iron Age/Early Roman contexts. Charcoal from Enclosure 2. Wood from burials and chambers in Enclosures 3 and 5. Charcoal from Enclosures 1, 3 and 4. Charcoal from the ditches of Enclosure 5. Charcoal from the ?mortuary enclosure CF43–6 in Enclosure 5. Charcoal from other features in Enclosure 5. The percentages of total land pollen and spores (tlp/s) of all the palynological taxa found in the plug. The proportions of the various taxa represented in the plug, excluding artemisia. The chemical compounds extracted from Artemisia absinthium and A. vulgaris. Percentage values for taxa found in the turf in chamber CF42. Plant macrofossils from from cremation burials DF1, DF26 and DF28. Plant macrofossils from pits DF3, DF7, DF20, DF21, DF30 and DF41. The worked flint from Site D. Types of cremation burials. Vessels related to food and drink. Pots and sherds almost certainly burnt or scorched post-firing. Weights of cremated human bone in the chambers, pits with pyre debris, cremation burials, ?mortuary enclosures, and shaft/barrels in Enclosures 3–5. Refined chronologies for Enclosures 3–5. The most refined chronology with many links assumed and the Warrior’s burial taken to be no later than A.D. 43. Dimensions of the chambers at Stanway and Folly Lane and possible chambers elsewhere.

xv

345 366 367 376 376 383 385 386 389 391 391 392 393 393 395 396 396 399 421 421 428 429 431

433 440 441 448

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As always, a report such as this is the result of the hard work and dedication of a great many people. As a starting point, we are grateful to Carl Crossan, who directed part of Site B, particularly for his work on Chamber BF24. The site supervisors and planners who were such important members of the team were Terry Cook, Robin Ellis, Simon Garrod, Andy Letch, Chris Lister, Mike Napthan, Kate Orr, Joe Partridge, Laura Pooley, Nigel Rayner, Rob Smith, and Rob Wardill. Geoff Carter directed the 1987 trial excavation. Photographic work, notably on Sites A and B, was carried out by Alison Colchester. Particular thanks are due to the very many people who worked so hard with the digging, especially Lisa Hepi and David Burnand for their careful excavation of the Doctor’s burial. Help in preparing the illustrations for publication was provided by Joseph Chittenden, Terry Cook, Stephen Crummy, Maureen MacDonald, Bob Moyes, David Ross, Emma Spurgeon, and Jason Walker. Editorial assistance was given by Gillian Adams. Our work at Stanway was made much easier by the staff at Tarmac who were always extremely helpful, supportive, and interested in our progress. We are especially indebted to the estate managers (sequentially) Tim Slaven, Ian Findlater, David Marsh, and Alan Everard, and on site to the site managers Reg Hilton and Fred Mitchell for their considerable practical help. In particular Ian Findlater gave invaluable encouragement and support in the mid 1990s when we were excavating the Doctor’s burial. We are most appreciative of the voluntary work provided on site by James Fawn and Dennis Tripp and indoors on the sorting of the coarse pottery by Dan Biglin. Especial thanks go to Tim Dennis of the University of Essex who helped set up what was an early example of a live webcam broadcast from an archaeological site. This was done with the aid of a telephone line kindly installed and provided by British Telecom. We are grateful to Alec Livingstone for his help with this matter. Thanks are also due to Peter Cott for the geophysical survey carried out on Site C and to David and Aline Black for that on Site D. Archive reports were kindly provided on the Roman tile by Ernest Black and on post-Roman finds by Howard Brooks. Bernard Lambot generously gave permission for the reproduction of some of his illustrations. The interest and advice of Dr Ian Stead during the earlier phase of the excavations was much appreciated. ∨ The contributors would also like to thank Justine Bayley, Dragan Božiic, Olivier Caumont, S. ∨ Corson, Jon Cotton, S. Davis, U. Eckardt, Michel Feugère, Kordula Gostencnik, Janet Lang, Hilary Major, Nicholas Moore, Rosalind Niblett, Nodge Nolan, Paola Pugsley, and Dave Webb for their help in various aspects of the project, and to acknowledge the benefit they received from all those people, too numerous to list, with whom they discussed the site and its finds. Conservation was undertaken at Colchester Museums and metallurgical analysis at English Heritage’s Centre for Archaeology, Fort Cumberland. Other specialist services were kindly provided by the following: SEM (British Museum), pigment analysis (Ashok Roy, National Gallery), real-time X-radiography (Vic Galert, Seifert X-Ray Ltd). Chris Salter cut and mounted one of the currency bars for Sarah Paynter and shared his expertise on this subject with her. The excavations were funded mainly by English Heritage and Tarmac Ltd. Tarmac also provided the machinery needed for topsoil-stripping. The post-excavation programme and report publication was funded by English Heritage and monitored by Sarah Jennings, to whom we are indebted for her support. English Heritage inspectors were Philip Walker, Mike Parker Pearson, Caroline Malone, and Deborah Priddy.The consultant on Site D was Andrew Josephs. Additional funds for the excavation were kindly provided on several occasions by Essex County Council with the backing of the county archaeologist David Buckley. The Essex History Fair and the Essex Heritage Trust also generously provided funds for some additional excavations. Tarmac kindly funded the provision of various facilities for public visits to the site. Our thanks are also due to Lynn Pitts and John Peter Wild of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, and to Val Kinsler of 100% Proof for her copy-editing and page make-up. Philip Crummy, Stephen Benfield, Nina Crummy, Valery Rigby, and Donald Shimmin xvi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

xvii

Site direction and authorship of the report The site directors were Donald Shimmin, Carl Crossan, and Stephen Benfield (consecutively) under the general direction of Philip Crummy. The unattributed parts of the report were the responsibility of Philip Crummy who incorporated or included in them adapted versions of texts written by Donald Shimmin (Sites A and most of B) and Stephen Benfield (Site C). They also take into account notes provided by Carl Crossan (part of Site B) and include sections of text and catalogue prepared by Nina Crummy (material culture) and Valery Rigby (Roman pottery from the burials). Other contributions by individuals are credited. Philip Crummy compiled the report and acted as general editor.

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS P. Crummy S. Benfield D. Shimmin A-M. Bojko

Director, Colchester Archaeological Trust Colchester Archaeological Trust Colchester Archaeological Trust Aberdeen Art Gallery and Museums; formerly Colchester and Ipswich Museums N.D. Brown Essex County Council C.R. Cartwright Materials Scientist, British Museum H.E.M. Cool Barbican Research Associates N. Crummy Small finds specialist G. Dannell Archaeological consultant J. A. Davies Norfolk Museums and Archaeology Service B. Dickinson University of Leeds V. Fryer Environmental Archaeologist R. Hingley University of Durham R. Jackson Curator of Romano-British Collections, British Museum A.J. Legge University of Cambridge H. Martingell Flint specialist S.A. Mays Centre for Archaeology, English Heritage N.D. Meeks Materials Scientist, British Museum P. Murphy English Heritage S. La Niece Materials Scientist, British Museum K. Oak Havering Sixth Form College S. Paynter Centre for Archaeology, English Heritage V. Rigby Gallo-Belgic pottery specialist U. Schädler Director, Musée Suisse du Jeu P.R. Sealey Colchester and Ipswich Museums A. Wade Animal bone specialist J.P. Wild Manchester Ancient Textile Unit, University of Manchester P.E.J. Wiltshire Forensic Ecologist and Palynologist, University of Aberdeen

SUMMARY The Stanway site was excavated in intermittent stages between 1987 and 2003 in advance of its destruction for sand and gravel extraction. It lay on the outskirts of the modern town of Colchester in what had been Stanway Hall Farm.The Stanway site was on the fringe of the Late Iron Age and Roman oppidum of Camulodunum. It appears to have been the burial place of members of a high-status Catuvellaunian family. The characteristics of the site and the rites practised there reveal links with the Folly Lane and King Harry Lane sites in Verulamium and sites in northern Gaul. Stanway provides support for the possibility that Camulodunum may have existed as early as the time of Caesar’s invasions of Britain. Of the five enclosures which characterised Stanway, the smallest and earliest was the core of an Iron Age farmstead which had been abandoned by the mid 1st century B.C. A pair of currency bars was placed in the ditch of its enclosure. Four funerary enclosures followed, each of which incorporated a single wooden chamber in a central or axial position. The earliest of the enclosures (Enclosure 1) was the largest. As well as a wooden chamber, it included an unaccompanied urned cremation burial and a pit with broken funerary goods. All three features dated to the second half of the 1st century B.C. A single contemporary pit found some distance away contained pyre debris and was probably datable to between c. 60 and 1 B.C. (CF7). The other three enclosures (Enclosures 3–5) were laid out in a continuous row in two stages, one in c. A.D. 35–45 (Enclosure 3) and the other two (Enclosures 4 and 5) as a conjoined pair in c A.D. 40–50. Parts of deliberately broken pots and other objects were placed in the chambers as part of the funerary rite. The minimum number of vessels represented in the chambers ranges from two in the earliest of them (AF25) to 24 in the largest of them (BF6). Six cremation burials inside Enclosures 3–5 date probably to c. A.D. 40–60/75 with most in the range c. A.D. 40-60. The numbers of grave goods in those burials varies from none at all to the many in the well-endowed ‘Warrior’s burial’ (BF64) and the ‘Doctor’s burial’ (CF47). The former was distinguished by the inclusion of a shield and lance or spear and the latter by a set of surgical instruments, a gaming board with counters in place, and a copper-alloy strainer which had been used to prepare an infusion of artemisia. The only certain pyre-site was in the centre of one of the enclosures (Enclosure 3) and had apparently been used at least twice. Two small square ditched areas in the latest two enclosures (Enclosures 4 and 5) may have been the sites of pyres or structures for excarnation. A small, probably unrelated, cemetery containing at least three cremation burials and five pyre-debris pits was situated about 200 m south-east of the enclosures. Its period of use, as far as can be judged, approximated to that of the enclosures but with a slightly later end date (i.e. from the early 1st century A.D. to the early Flavian period). However, the grave goods they contained are comparatively modest in nature and number.

xviii

SUMMARY

xix

RÉSUMÉ Le site de Stanway a été fouillé de manière intermittente entre 1987 et 2003, date de sa destruction du fait de l’extraction de sable et de graviers. Il était situé à proximité de la ville moderne de Colchester, où se trouve Stanway Hall Farm et, à la fin de l’Âge du Fer et à la période romaine, était proche de l’oppidum de Camulodunum. Il semble avoir été le lieu de sépulture des membres d’une famille de rang élevé au sein des Catuvellauni. Les caractéristiques du site et les rites funéraires révèlent des liens avec les sites de Folly Lane et King Harry Lane à Verulamium, ainsi qu’avec des sites du Nord de la Gaule. Stanway vient étayer l’hypothèse selon laquelle Camulodunum a existé dès l’époque des invasions de la Bretagne par César. Des cinq enclos de Stanway, le plus petit et le plus ancien constituait le cœur d’une ferme de l’Âge du Fer, abandonnée au milieu du Ier s. avant J.-C. Deux lingots en fer ont été recueillis dans son fossé. Quatre enclos funéraires ont suivi, chacun étant pourvu d’une unique chambre en bois, en position centrale ou axiale. Le premier de ces enclos (Enclos 1) est aussi le plus grand. Outre une chambre en bois, il contenait une incinération en urne mais sans mobilier, ainsi qu’un puits avec des dépôts funéraires brisés; ces trois structures datent à la deuxième moitié du Ier s. avant J.-C. Un seul puits contemporain, mais à quelque distance de l’enclos, contenait les restes d’un bûcher qui a pu être daté approximativement vers 60–1 av. J.-C. (CF7). Les trois autres enclos (Enclos 3–5) ont été disposés en deux étapes sur une ligne continue, l’un d’eux vers 35–45 ap. J.-C. (Enclos 3) et les deux autres (Enclos 4 et 5) en même temps, vers 40–50. Des fragments de vases volontairement brisés et d’autres objets ont été déposés dans les chambres funéraires au cours des funérailles. Le nombre minimum de vases représentés dans les tombes va de 2, pour la première (AF25), à 24 dans la plus grande (BF6). Six incinérations (Enclos 3–5) datent probablement de c. 40–60/75 ap. J.-C., sans doute pour la plupart de c. 40–60. Le mobilier funéraire dans ces sépultures va de l’absence totale à c. 3040 objets, dans le cas de la sépulture du Guerrier (BF64) et celle du Médecin (CF47), toutes deux abondamment pourvues. L’une se distingue par la présence d’un bouclier et d’une lance ou javelot, l’autre par une série d’instruments chirurgicaux, une table de jeu avec des pions en place, et un bassin à bec verseur qui a servi à préparer une tisane à l’armoise. Le seul site de bûcher bien individualisé a été trouvé au centre de l’un des enclos (Enclos 3): de toute évidence, il a servi au moins deux fois. Deux petites fosses carrées dans les deux derniers enclos (Enclos 4 et 5) signalent peut-être des bûchers funéraires ou des structures d’excarnation. Un petit cimetière, situé à env. 200 m au sud-est des ces enclos, n’a probablement pas de rapport direct avec eux. Il a livré trois incinérations et au moins cinq puits avec des restes de bûchers. Son utilisation semble contemporaine de celle des enclos mais aussi un peu plus tardive (soit du début du Ier siècle ap. J.-C. jusqu’au début des Flaviens). Du reste, les dépôts funéraires de ces sépultures sont relativement modestes, tant par leur caractère que par leur nombre. Traduction: N. Crummy et M. Feugère

xx

STANWAY: AN ÉLITE BURIAL SITE AT CAMULODUNUM

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Die Stanway Fundstätte wurde zwischen 1987 und 2003 in mehreren Kampagnen vor ihrer Zerstörung im Zuge der Sand- und Kiesgewinnung ergraben. Die Grabung befindet sich an der Peripherie der heutigen Stadt Colchester in der ehemaligen Stanway Hall Farm. Ursprünglich lag Stanway am Rande des späteisenzeitlichen und römischen oppidums Camulodunum und war wahrscheinlich der Begräbnisplatz einer hochrangigen Familie. Die charakteristischen Merkmale der Fundstätte und der Grabriten zeigen Verbindungen mit Folly Lane und King Harry Lane in Verulamium und dem nördlichen Gallien auf. Die Befunde von Stanway stützen die Hypothese, dass Camulodunum vielleicht schon zur Zeit von Caesars Britannienzügen existierte. Die Anlage in Stanway besteht aus fünf Einfriedungen; die kleinste und zugleich älteste bildete das Zentrum eines eisenzeitlichen Gehöfts, das in der Mitte des 1. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. aufgegeben worden war. Zwei stabförmige Eisenbarren sind in den Graben dieser Einfriedung gelegt worden. Vier Grabanlagen schlossen sich an, jede mit einer hölzernen Grabkammer entweder im Zentrum oder längsachsig zur Umfassung. Die älteste Grabumfassung (Einfriedung 1) war auch die größte. Sie umschloss sowohl die Grabkammer als auch ein Urnengrab ohne Beigaben und eine Grube mit zerstörten und zerbrochenen Beigaben. Alle drei Befunde können in die zweite Hälfte des 1. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. datiert werden. Eine weitere zeitgleiche Grube, die in einigem Abstand gefunden wurde, enthielt die Reste eines Scheiterhaufens und stammt aus der Zeit von ca. 60 bis 1 v. Chr. Die drei anderen Einfriedigungen (Einfriedung 3 bis 5) sind in einer Linie, aber zu unterschiedlichen Zeiten angelegt worden: Enclosure 3 um ca. 35 bis 45 n. Chr. und die anderen zwei (Einfriedungen 4 und 5) als zusammengehörendes Paar um ca. 40 bis 50 n. Chr.Teile der zerbrochenen Keramik und die anderen Grabbeigaben wurden während des Begräbnisritus in die Kammern gelegt. Die Zahl der Gefäße in den Grabkammern reicht von zwei in der ältesten (AF25) bis zu vierundzwanzig in der größten Kammer (BF6). Sechs Brandgräber in den Einfriedungen 3 bis 5 können wahrscheinlich in die Jahre 40 bis 60/75 n. Chr. datiert werden, die meisten davon in die Jahre 40 bis 50 n. Chr. Die Ausstattung der Gräber ist sehr unterschiedlich. Der Bogen spannt sich von Gräbern ohne Beigabe bis hin zu dem Kriegergrab (BF64) und dem Arztgrab (CF47), die reich ausgestattet sind. Das Kriegergrab enthielt einen Schild und eine Lanze oder Speer. In dem Arztgrab wurden ein Satz chirurgischer Instrumente, ein Spiel, dessen Steine sich auf dem Brett noch in ihrer Position befanden, und ein bronzenes Siebgefäß, das zur Herstellung eines Kräuteraufgusses (mit Artemisia) diente, gefunden. Die einzige sicher identifizierte Scheiterhaufen-Stelle befindet sich in der Mitte einer der Einfriedungen (Einfriedung 3) und wurde vermutlich wenigstens zweimal benutzt. Zwei kleine quadratische, mit Gräben umgebene Gebiete in den zwei spätesten Einfriedungen (Einfriedungen 4 und 5) sind vielleicht die Stellen für Scheiterhaufen oder für die Vornahme von Dekarnationen (Entfleischungen). Ein kleines und wahrscheinlich unabhängiges Gräberfeld mit mindestens drei Brandgräbern und fünf Gruben, die Scheiterhaufenreste enthielten, wurde ca. 200 m südöstlich der Einfriedungen gefunden. Dieser kleine Friedhof wurde, soweit datierbar, zur selben Zeit wie die Einfriedungen benutzt, aber er blieb ein wenig länger als diese in Gebrauch, mit einem Enddatum von dem frühen 1. Jahrhundert n. Chr. bis in die frühe flavische Zeit. Die Grabbeigaben sind jedoch relativ bescheiden in Anzahl und Qualität. ∨

Übersetzung: U. Eckardt und D. Božic

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND THE STANWAY SITE (FIGS 1–3, 9) The subject of this report has come to be known simply as the ‘Stanway site’ after the wider area in which it lay. However, it could more accurately have been termed the ‘Colchester Quarry site’ after the quarry in which the site was situated until its gradual destruction during sand and gravel extraction between c. 1987 and 2005. The site was located in the parish of Stanway at NGR TL 955 226, on a flat plateau to the south-west of modern Colchester (FIGS 1–2). It lay only 0.25 km west of Gryme’s Dyke, the westernmost element of the system of dykes which protected the Late Iron Age and Roman oppidum of Camulodunum. The complex of dykes evolved over many decades. Some of the earthworks appear to have been of post-conquest date, the latest being Gryme’s Dyke itself which is now dated to just after the Boudican revolt (CAR 11, 107–14). The royal farmstead at Gosbecks (CAR 11, 97–8) lay about 1.5 km to the east of the Stanway site, with the industrial site of Sheepen (Hawkes and Hull 1947; Niblett 1985; CAR 11, 70–84) some 4 km further to the north-east. Various Late Iron Age burials have been found to the south-west of Sheepen at Lexden. These include the famous Lexden Tumulus, a rich grave dated to c. 15–10 B.C. and believed to be that of a British king (Foster 1986; CAR 11, 85–94). Gosbecks continued to be an important place in the Roman period as is shown by the presence there of a Roman theatre and a Romano-Celtic temple within a monumental portico (CAR 11, 95–105). Although not falling within the defended area provided by the dyke system, the high-status nature of the Stanway site suggests that it must nevertheless have been intimately linked with Camulodunum (FIG. 3). The existence of archaeological remains on the Stanway site was first revealed by aerial photography in the 1930s. This showed clear cropmarks of five ditched enclosures, the largest being over 100 m across (FIGS 2 and 9).The enclosures were arranged in two north–south rows, with two end to end to the west and the rest conjoined in a line to the east. Until the 1990s, the function and date of the enclosures were uncertain, but the favoured view was that they were concerned with the management of stock. Archaeological excavation changed all that and revealed a remarkable funerary site with some extraordinary finds. HISTORY OF THE EXCAVATIONS (FIG. 4) The quarry has had a life of over thirty years, and the quarry face did not reach the enclosures until 1987 because they were near the south side of the site. The archaeological excavations were carried out in two stages, each just in front of the slowly advancing quarry face. The first stage took place yearly between 1987 and 1992, the second in 1996 and 1997. The history of the excavation needs to be explained in some detail to make clear how and why the excavation strategy changed as the project progressed. Today for a site such as the Stanway pit, the quarry company would probably have been required to fund any archaeological work made necessary by their workings. This would have been achieved by making the initial planning consent subject to archaeological investigations that the quarry company would need to fund. But planning consent for the Stanway pit was granted in the 1960s, some considerable time before such conditions became the norm, and the result was that there was no financial provision to cover any archaeological work that might prove necessary. 1

2

FIG.

STANWAY: AN ÉLITE BURIAL SITE AT CAMULODUNUM

1.

The Stanway site in relation to Camulodunum and the Roman town and its regional location

FIG.

3.

The Stanway site in relation to the Iron Age and Roman archaeology at Gosbecks

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 3

4

FIG.

STANWAY: AN ÉLITE BURIAL SITE AT CAMULODUNUM

4.

Site areas (A–E) and areas of excavation (see pp. 5–7)

At the outset of the project, English Heritage and Tarmac both recognised that there was a problem and both kindly agreed to a jointly funded package which was to allow sampling of the ditches and interiors of the enclosures.Tarmac were under no obligation to do this, and English Heritage generously offered to support the project as a willing partner for Tarmac. Nobody at this point could have guessed the true extent of the work which would be needed to do the site justice.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

5

The enclosures had never been highlighted as being of unusual interest or of exceptional archaeological potential. This only changed with the discovery of BF6 which, as it happened, coincided with the discovery of a similar but richer chamber at Folly Lane, Verulamium, St Albans, Herts. Recognition of the chamber meant that simply sampling ditches and the interiors of the enclosures was not going to be enough. This was because it became apparent that the enclosures represented the remains of a hitherto unrecognised kind of monument in Britain where it was not possible to predict what they might contain or what form such remains might take. Subsequent investigations did indeed confirm that the interiors and the ditch fills all merited total excavation. With a gradually improving understanding of what the remains represented, the interiors of the enclosures were subject to greater examination as the excavation progressed, and, by the time Enclosure 5 was being excavated, the investigations were as thorough and comprehensive as could be managed within the limits of what resources could be mustered. In retrospect, although the earliest work was not as exhaustive as the later investigations, it is doubtful if anything of great significance was missed. It would have been good if much more of the ditch fills could have been excavated on Site A, but, from the little that was done, it seems very likely that there were no great scatters of broken pottery as observed in Enclosures 4 and 5. And although all of the interior of Enclosure 1 was not subjected to methodical investigation, observations during machine-stripping, coupled with the careful hand-cleaning of some areas, suggest that few, if any, important features are likely to have been overlooked. This is not to say that total excavation would not have been worthwhile. Such an approach would have been helpful because it would have given confidence to our belief that little of significance was missed and it would have provided more data to map the distribution of the smashed pottery in the ditches. The main problems of the under-resourcing were the consequences of having to machine-excavate the ditches of Enclosures 3 and 4 and having to excavate the Warrior’s burial in its entirety on the day on which it was discovered. The experience of the latter in particular made us determined to avoid a similar situation arising again. As it turned out, a similar grave did indeed subsequently emerge (i.e. the Doctor’s burial), and this time it was excavated and recorded as carefully and as painstakingly as possible. The sequence of excavation, the areas concerned, and the methodology employed are as summarised below. The thick lines on FIGURE 4 show the limits of the sites (i.e. Sites A, B, C, D and E). ‘Hand-cleaning’ usually involved hoeing with some surface trowelling. May–June 1987 FIG. 4, Site A, Area A A small trench was hand-dug to locate the western side of Enclosure 1. The enclosures were known from oblique aerial photographs, and fixing their position successfully in the field had to be the starting point of the investigation. The enclosure ditch was located and sectioned as a result. March 1988 FIG. 4, Site A, Area B Following unsupervised machine-stripping, limited areas were cleaned by hand and a few features of minor significance were excavated on the western side of Enclosure 1. May–August 1988 FIG. 4, Site C, Area C An area at the north end of Enclosure 1 was machine-stripped under archaeological supervision and then the surface was cleaned by hand. An evaluation trench was cut by machine through the unstripped area of Enclosures 1 and 2. The trench was parallel to the quarry face which at that time was a short distance to the west. All the finds were plotted in plan, and there was limited excavation of features, including the first of the cremation burials (i.e. AF18).

6

STANWAY: AN ÉLITE BURIAL SITE AT CAMULODUNUM

March–April 1989 FIG. 4, Site A, Areas B, C and D Part of Enclosure 1 and the north end of Enclosure 2 were machine-stripped under archaeological supervision. Area excavation followed. This included the excavation of chamber AF25 and a pit with broken funerary goods, AF48. 1990 FIG. 4, Site A, Area E The south-east corner of Enclosure 1 was stripped without archaeological supervision. November–December 1990 FIG. 4, Site A, Area F Most of the eastern half of Enclosure 1 was stripped under archaeological supervision.This was followed by limited area excavation which revealed various small pits and stake-holes of relatively early date. February–July 1991 FIG. 4, Site B Enclosures 3 and 4 were machine-stripped under archaeological supervision and large areas hand-cleaned.The funding package kindly provided by English Heritage and Tarmac was based on the examination of a 25 per cent sample of the stripped area, but the unexpected discovery of two chambers (BF6 and BF24), each requiring detailed recording, meant that much less could be achieved. In the event, the interiors of Enclosures 3 and 4 were not exhaustively examined, but instead work was focused on key locations and places where features were evident either during the mechanical stripping or the subsequent cleaning. Thus, in addition to the chambers, most of the work was concentrated on the entrances of Enclosures 3 and 4, and the pyre-sites BF16/BF1 and the ?mortuary enclosure BF32. January–February 1992 FIG. 4, Site B Funds were now exhausted, but the quarry face had reached the west side of Site B and the loss of that part of the site was imminent. With the aid of a small but invaluable grant from Essex County Council, unexcavated parts of the ditches of Enclosures 3 and 4 were excavated by machine to check for the presence of burials or other substantial remains. All of the ditch forming Enclosure 3 and the northern half of Enclosure 4 was dug out, except for a length on the west side of Enclosure 3, which was under the temporary roadway along the top of the quarry face. No burials were found and there was only sparse evidence for smashed pots such as subsequently discovered in much larger numbers in the ditch forming Enclosure 5 and the rest of Enclosure 4. March–April 1992 FIG. 4, Site B The excavations on-going at this time at Folly Lane, Verulamium, St Albans, had shown that grave goods (in this case chain mail and a horse bit) associated with chambers such as that in Site B could be buried in a secondary pit inside the funerary enclosure. It thus became apparent that it was important to check that nothing similar existed inside Enclosure 3 at Stanway.There was also a need to investigate the interior of the enclosure thoroughly for burials. With the aid of a grant of £500 from the Essex History Fair, the surface of Site B was again stripped and cleaned by machine at almost the very last minute before being destroyed by the advancing quarry face. All features (certain and dubious) were ‘tested’ by hand or, failing this, by machine. The work could only last a day and resulted in the discovery and hasty excavation of the Warrior’s burial (BF64) and the Inkwell burial (BF67). No secondary pits like that at Folly Lane were found.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

7

July–September 1996 FIG. 4, Site C The whole of Site C was stripped by machine under archaeological supervision. All of Enclosure 5 was then hand-cleaned and excavated. Features investigated included the chamber CF42, the ?mortuary enclosure CF43–6, the slot CF96, the Doctor’s burial CF47, the Brooches burial CF72, and the pit CF7. About 60 per cent of the ditch of Enclosure 5 was fully excavated. Little work was undertaken in Enclosure 2 that year except for a few sections across its enclosure ditch. Also at that time, the whole of Site C was metal-detected. This resulted in the discovery of a pair of currency bars in the enclosure ditch of Enclosure 2 and two Iron Age spearheads south of Enclosure 2. July–August 1996 FIG. 4, Site C, Area G An exploratory trench was cut by machine through a palaeochannel (CF52) south of Enclosure 2. July–September 1997 FIG. 4, Site C The uninvestigated part of Enclosure 2 was cleaned by hand. All internal features were then excavated, plus about 35 per cent of the enclosure ditch. At the same time, the interior of Enclosure 5 was re-cleaned by hand to make sure that no archaeological features had been mistaken for natural ones the previous year. Around 150 features were investigated that year. All but one of them (cremation burial CF403) appeared to be natural. Excavation of the chamber CF42 and the ?ritual shaft CF23 was completed. November–December 2002 FIG. 4, Site D The south-east corner of the field was machine-stripped without archaeological supervision in readiness for sand and gravel extraction. As a result, various dark patches were revealed that a preliminary investigation showed to include at least one cremation burial and a number of pits with charcoal and pyre debris. A geophysical survey of the site was carried out in March–April 2003 by Aileen Black and David Black. December 2003 FIG. 4, Site D Tarmac provided additional funds for a more thorough investigation of the stripped area. Just over 50 per cent of it was very lightly cleaned with a mini-digger fitted with a toothless bucket. This had to be done, because the surface was obscured by vegetation and lenses of redeposited material left behind during the site-stripping. Subsequently, excavation of the features uncovered in 2002 was completed and a further two cremation burials and more pits with charcoal and pyre debris were investigated. August 2004 FIG. 4, Site E The south-west corner of the field was machine-stripped under archaeological supervision in readiness for mineral extraction. The archaeological monitoring was funded by Tarmac. Little of archaeological significance was recorded. SIMPLIFIED CHRONOLOGY AND KEY FEATURES (FIGS 5–9) NEOLITHIC AND LATE BRONZE AGE/EARLY IRON AGE (FIG. 5) The earliest occupation in the area is indicated by a limited scatter of flints, a small quantity of pottery and a number of pits, of which one was Late Neolithic, one was Early Bronze Age, and three were Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age (FIG. 5).

8

STANWAY: AN ÉLITE BURIAL SITE AT CAMULODUNUM

MIDDLE IRON AGE (c. 200–50 B.C.) (FIGS 5, 9) The core of a Middle Iron Age farmstead is represented by Enclosure 2 and a ?secondary boundary ditch (CF137/AF59) to the north (FIGS 5 and 9). There was a scatter of pits inside the enclosure and west of the boundary ditch. The largest of these were inside Enclosure 2. The spatial relationships between the pits inside Enclosure 2 and the presumed bank along the inner edge of its ditch allow the site of a single round-house to be tentatively identified. There was a substantial scatter of Middle Iron Age pottery over the sites of Enclosures 1 and 2. Most of it fell within Enclosure 2, and much of it was residual in later contexts. Enclosure 2 contained many fragments of loomweights, which is consistent with a domestic/agricultural use

FIG.

5.

Phase 1 and earlier

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

9

for the enclosure as opposed to a funerary one. Some flint tools and waste from the site also seem to be Iron Age. A hoard of two currency bars was ‘placed’ in the enclosure ditch of the farmstead. Dating of the bars is not precise on stratigraphic grounds. However, they do seem to pre-date the earliest of the Late Iron Age burials, because they appear to have been deposited relatively early in the life of the farmstead (p. 26). Spearheads found during a metal-detector survey to the south of the farmstead enclosure appear to be of Late Iron Age or early Roman date. In view of the nearby currency bars, they may have been ritually deposited.

FIG.

6.

Phase 2: second half of the 1st century B.C.

10

STANWAY: AN ÉLITE BURIAL SITE AT CAMULODUNUM

SECOND HALF OF THE 1ST CENTURY B.C. (FIGS 6 and 9) Enclosure 1 was laid out during the second half of the 1st century B.C. and a small wooden burial chamber inserted into it (FIGS 6 and 9). A cremation in a single pot was later interred in the enclosure, and a large pit dug in which were buried the broken remains of a ?wooden box with decorative iron and copper-alloy bands and a pair of earrings or a finger-ring. Some distance to the east of Enclosure 2, beyond the area later occupied by Enclosure 5, was a pit with pyre debris. The interred remains included a pot containing a brooch datable to c. 50–10 B.C.

FIG.

7.

Phase 3: mid 1st century A.D.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

11

MID 1ST CENTURY A.D. (c. A.D. 40–60) (FIGS 7–9) Enclosures 3 to 5 were laid out around the middle of the 1st century A.D. (FIGS 7–9). Burnt patches in the centre of Enclosure 3 indicate the probable sites of two sequential pyres (FIG. 7). Two small ditched areas in the other two enclosures are each likely to represent the site of a pyre-site and/or the remains of a platform or other above-ground structure for excarnation. Each of the enclosures contained a single wooden burial chamber (FIG. 8). The grave goods in the chambers had been smashed prior to deposition and only small samples of the resultant debris deposited in the chambers. Some of the vessels from at least one of the chambers appear to have been burnt on a pyre after having been broken.

FIG.

8.

Phase 4: mid 1st century A.D.

12

FIG.

STANWAY: AN ÉLITE BURIAL SITE AT CAMULODUNUM

9.

Stanway: aerial view of cropmarks (Crown Copyright NMR)

In addition to the chambers, there were six secondary burials in this phase. Three are of exceptional interest, because their grave goods signify something about the occupation of the dead person: a ‘doctor’ (with surgical instruments), a presumed ‘warrior’ (with spear and shield), and a literate person (with an inkwell). Ritual activity is indicated by hundreds of sherds of smashed pottery in the enclosure ditches especially along the east side of the enclosures and perhaps also by a ‘shaft’ in the south-west corner of Enclosure 5. The possibility of an above-ground structure in the south-east corner of Enclosure 5 is indicated by a single north–south slot (CF96). A temple or excarnation platform are two possible explanations for this feature. The relationships between the enclosure ditches suggest that Enclosures 4 and 5 were laid out as one, as an addition to Enclosure 3. Sequencing and dating closely not only the enclosures themselves but the various features and activities represented in them is difficult. No clear unequivocal solution can be offered, but the issues are discussed in detail on pages 438–43 where a possible scheme is tentatively outlined. At a simple level, it seems very likely that all three enclosures and the features in them were laid out between c. A.D. 40 and 60. The only definite exception is the slot CF96, the fill of which, because it contained a copper-alloy Neronian coin, must post-date A.D. 64.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

13

The small number of burials (three) and pits with pyre-related debris (four, possibly five) in the south-east corner of the site (i.e. Site D) formed the remains of an apparently unenclosed cemetery area, which presumably was not directly related to Enclosures 1 and 3–5. The range of dates of these burials and pits equated with those of the funerary enclosures with, as in the latter, the emphasis on the Claudio-Neronian period, although the presence of a coin of Vespasian in one of the pits with pyre-related debris shows that the closing date of this group may have been a decade or so later. POST-ROMAN FEATURES A few sherds of medieval and later pottery have been found in the ploughsoil in the part of the site immediately south of the funerary enclosures. This material should probably be associated with medieval and later occupation along the street frontage forming the southern boundary of the quarry field. The frontage is opposite All Saints’ church and the site of Stanway Hall, although the number of sherds seems too low to justify supposing that they belong to a nowdeserted or shrunken village of Stanway. The site of the enclosures was crossed by three post-Roman field boundaries. The archaeological remains were badly damaged by ploughing (as typically happens in Essex and East Anglia). Sand and gravel extraction started in the 1960s. SUMMARY OF DATES Middle Iron Age farmstead c. 200–50 B.C. Enclosure 2 (the core of a Middle Iron Age farmstead) Pits within Enclosure 2, some containing fragments of loomweights Pits to the north on the site of the later Enclosure 1 Substantial scatter of Middle Iron Age pottery over sites of Enclosures 1 and 2, probably extending throughout Period 2 Ditch CF137/AF59 added on north side of Enclosure 2 Funerary enclosures and their associated funerary contexts Late Iron Age: c. 50–1 B.C. AF25: chamber in Enclosure 1 (contains fragments of two vessels) AF18: cremation burial in Enclosure 1 (a single pot containing cremated bone) AF48: pit with broken funerary goods (contained fragments of a ?box with decorative iron and copper-alloy bands and also a small amount of cremated human bone) Late Iron Age/early Roman Enclosure 3: laid out c. A.D. 35–45 BF1 and BF16: pyre-sites c. A.D. 35–45 (BF16 post-dates BF1) Enclosures 4 and 5: laid out as one unit c. A.D. 40–50 BF32 and CF43–6: ?sites of pyres or (less likely) structures for the display of bodies c. A.D. 40–50, presumably laid out at the same time as their enclosures BF6: chamber constructed c. A.D. 35–45 BF64: ‘Warrior’s burial’ c. A.D. 40–50 BF67: ‘Inkwell burial’ c. A.D. 40–50 BF24: chamber c. A.D. 40–50 CF42: chamber c. A.D. 45–55 CF47: ‘Doctor’s burial’ c. A.D. 40–50 CF72: ‘Brooches burial’ c. A.D. 43–50 CF115: ‘Mirror burial’ c. A.D. 50–60 CF403: cremation burial c. A.D. 50–60 CF23: ?shaft c. A.D. 40–50 CF96: slot c. A.D. 65–75 (part of an above-ground structure?)

14

STANWAY: AN ÉLITE BURIAL SITE AT CAMULODUNUM

Unenclosed funerary contexts CF7: pit with pyre debris c. 50–10 B.C. Site D DF1: cremation burial c. A.D. 10–43/60 DF26: cremation burial early 1st century A.D. DF28: cremation burial A.D. 43–70 DF2: pit with pyre debris c. A.D. 70–80/90 DF3: pit with pyre debris c. A.D. 43–70 DF7: pit with pyre debris c. A.D. 70–80/90 DF13/14: pit with pyre debris c. A.D. 43–?80/90 DF25: ?pit with pyre debris ?1st century A.D. EXPLANATION OF THE SITE CODES AND SMALL FIND NUMBERS The recording system used at Stanway was similar to that used at other sites in Colchester (CAR 3, 3–4; CAR 6, 3–5). Stanway was dug as a series of sub-sites which are referred to by a single-letter code (sub-sites A–E). These codes are used to prefix the context numbers (e.g. A509, BL25, CF68). An exception to this is the small trial-trench dug by hand in 1987. A few context numbers from this trench are referred to in the report and are prefixed by the Colchester Museums accession number 1987.16. There are three separate sets of small find numbers and these can be distinguished by the prefix to the context number: 1) a short series for the 1987 trial-trench prefixed by 1987.16, 2) a series for sub-sites A and B (Colchester Museums accession number 1988.4) prefixed by A or B, 3) a series for sub-sites C and D (Colchester Museums accession numbers 1996.34 for C and 2002.247 for D) prefixed by C or D. INTRODUCTION TO THE LATE IRON AGE AND ROMAN POTTERY IN THIS REPORT The Late Iron Age and Roman pottery, including the samian and amphoras, is listed and catalogued by archaeological context where appropriate. The pottery assemblage is dominated by whole and broken pots (referred to here as ‘partial pots’) and divides naturally into two separate assemblages that are almost mutually exclusive, i.e. pots or broken pots from the burials and chambers, and broken pots from the enclosure ditches and ditches of the ?mortuary enclosures.Vessels from the latter, where individual pots could be identified, have been assigned a unique number (e.g. Pot 59). Elsewhere, they are referenced according to context (e.g. BF6.6). Reports and discussion about specific categories or groups of pottery appear as free-standing contributions in the second half of the report. These are amphoras (Paul R. Sealey), GalloBelgic wares (V. Rigby), stamps on the Gallo-Belgic wares (V. Rigby), samian (G. Dannell), and the pottery assemblages from the enclosure ditches and ?mortuary enclosures (Stephen Benfield). The fabric codes used in the report are listed in TABLE 1, and descriptions of them are given in Chapter 5 on pages 268–71. Where possible, pottery forms for the Gallo-Belgic, Gaulish, and coarsewares follow those of the Camulodunum pottery type series (Hawkes and Hull 1947, 202–7, 215–75; Hull 1958, 280–92). A pot is regarded as ‘partial’ if, from joining sherds and other indications, it is apparent that parts of it had been deposited in the ditches after the pot had been broken. No doubt many more of the pots given pot numbers must have been partial than we have managed to identify. This is because similarities of forms and fabrics make the recognition of individual partial pots difficult unless they are distinctive in some way. It would appear that at least 20 per cent or so of any one vessel categorised as partial was present in the ditches, but this figure is likely to be meaningless because partial pots represented by a relatively small number of sherds will be harder to identify.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

TABLE

1: FABRIC

Fabric code

15

CODES AND NAMES FOR THE ROMAN, GALLO-BELGIC AND GAULISH WARES

Fabric name

BPW/NOG WH3 CAD AM CAM AM 1 CAM AM 2 CAT AM CG CC1 CC2

Butt-beaker parchment ware/North Gaulish (Gallo-Belgic) white ware 3 Cadiz amphora Campanian (Black sand) amphora 1 (Northern) Campanian amphora 2 Catalan amphora Central Gaulish colour-coated wares, ‘Lyons’ ware/Central Gaulish (white and cream) colour-coated wares CNG GL1 GL2 Central Gaulish lead-glazed ware/Central Gaulish (white and cream) glazed wares 1 and 2 CSOW Coarse sandy oxidised ware DJ Roman oxidised wares FJ Brockley Hill/Verulamium region oxidised ware FMW Fumed micaceous ware FSOW Fine sandy oxidised ware FSW Fine sandy ware/early grey ware GBW Glossy burnished ware GFW Gaulish flagon ware GTW Late Iron Age wares, commonly grog-tempered GX Other coarsewares, principally locally produced grey wares HD Shell-tempered and calcite-gritted wares HZ Large storage jars and other vessels in heavily tempered grey wares MVW Mixed vesicular ware PW ‘Pimply’ ware RCVW Romanising coarse vesicular ware RCW Romanising coarseware ROW Romanising oxidised ware SW Sandy ware TN/GAB TN1(A) Terra nigra/Gallo-Belgic terra nigra 1 TR1(C)/GAB TR1(C) Terra-rubra 1(C)/Gallo-Belgic terra-rubra 1(C) TR3/GAB TR3 Terra-rubra 3/Gallo-Belgic terra-rubra 3 WPW/NOG WH1 White pipe clay ware/North Gaulish (Gallo-Belgic) white ware 1

DEFINITION OF TERMS USED IN THE REPORT Funerary goods A selection of objects that has been assembled for a funeral and would in most cases have been interred intact in a grave. Grave goods Funerary goods that have been interred in a grave. Pyre debris Debris from a funeral pyre characterised by the presence of charcoal and sometimes cremated bone and containing whole or broken funerary goods that have been placed on or very close to a pyre, including objects worn on the body.

CHAPTER 2

FEATURES AND FINDS PRE-DATING THE MIDDLE IRON AGE FARMSTEAD THE EARLIEST OCCUPATION (FIGS 2, 5, 10) The evidence for occupation pre-dating the enclosures is sparse and consists of at least five pits and a scatter of residual pottery sherds and flints, dating variously from the Late Neolithic to the Early Iron Age. A Neolithic component is particularly evident in the flint assemblage (p. 21). To the north of where Enclosure 1 was later to lie, a single sherd of Peterborough Ware was recovered from AF16, while a quantity of probable Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age pottery was found in AF71 (FIG. 5, A, C; FIG. 10). Further south, two pits (FIG. 2, AF28 and AF46) contained 61 sherds (872 g) of Early Iron Age pottery (FIG. 5, D; FIG. 10). Pit CF81 in the north-west part of the later Enclosure 5 contained a small quantity of Early Bronze Age pottery (FIG. 5, B; FIG. 10). Sherds (C66) from a heavily flint-tempered vessel of Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age date were found in a small scatter about 1 m south of Enclosure 5 (FIG. 5, ?C). They probably derived from a shallow feature removed during machine stripping. The residual material includes a rim sherd from a Late Neolithic Peterborough Ware bowl from the ditch of Enclosure 2 (FIG. 2, CF6). Near the Early Iron Age pits AF28 and AF46 were some undatable pits (AF30, AF34–5, AF42) containing charcoal, traces of burning and other indications of prehistoric occupation in the vicinity (FIG. 2). Pits AF28 and AF34 contained some fragments of burnt stones. These

FIG.

10.

Features pre-dating Enclosure 2: sections and profiles (scale 1:50) 16

FEATURES AND FINDS PRE-DATING THE MIDDLE IRON AGE FARMSTEAD

17

were part of the substantial scatter of such material across the western part of the site, apparently made up of burnt flint pebbles and sandstone/quartzite ‘pot-boilers’. Neither group of burnt stone is datable, although a Middle Iron Age date for both seems the most likely (p. 20), in which case AF28, AF34 and the others in the undated group of pits are probably of this date or later. But the dating of these pits is problematic. The proximity of AF30 to AF28 and AF46 hints that the pits belong to the Early Iron Age, and plant remains in AF30 characteristic of Late Neolithic assemblages in Essex (p. 384) suggest that this pit and AF42, which was cut by it, may be even earlier. Another pit, AF44, was cut by the ditch of Enclosure 2 and is presumed to be part of the clearance of the site before the enclosure was laid out (p. 26). THE EARLIER PREHISTORIC POTTERY (FIG. 11) By Nigel Brown The excavations produced a small amount of pottery (341 sherds weighing 1.855 kg), which has been recorded (details in archive) using a system devised for prehistoric pottery in Essex (Brown 1988). All decorated and rim sherds (with the exception of the rim fragments from AF71 and CF81) are illustrated (FIG. 11, TABLE 2). Fabrics present in the assemblage are: Fabric A, flint, S, 2 well sorted B, flint, S–M, 2 C, flint, S–M with some L, 2 D, flint, S–L, 3 F, sand, S–M, 2–3 with addition of occasional large flint J, sand, S 2 with veg. voids particularly on surfaces M, grog, may have some sand or flint and occasional voids L, quartz sometimes with sand, S–L 2 O, quartz and flint, S–L, 2 P, largely temperless, may have sparse very fine sand occasional flint or sparse irregular voids. Size of inclusions: S = less than 1 mm diameter; M = 1–2 mm diameter; L = more than 2 mm diameter. Density of inclusions: 1 = less than 6 per cm²; 2 = 6–10 per cm²; 3 = more than 10 per cm².

The earliest pottery present is Peterborough Ware (FIG. 11, 1–3, TABLE 2), traditionally regarded as of Late Neolithic date, although recent reconsideration of the dating evidence (Gibson and Kinnes 1997) has suggested an earlier origin. This is supported locally by the stratigraphic sequence at the Springfield Cursus (Buckley et al. 2001). Body sherds and ?base sherds with cord-impressed decoration (FIG. 11, 1), and rim sherds, probably from Mortlake Style bowls (FIG. 11, 2–3), are present among the Stanway pottery. The material was derived from one of the enclosure ditches (CF6) and from a small pit (AF16). A small sherd of a flat base in Fabric F included with the Peterborough Ware from CF6 might be contemporary, but Fabric F commonly occurs in Middle Iron Age assemblages and consequently this sherd may well be of Iron Age date. Early Bronze Age material is represented by a small fragment of the rim of a Collared Urn decorated with cord impressions on the exterior, together with a few other sherds from CF81, all in a grog-tempered fabric and possibly from the same pot. Much of the earlier prehistoric pottery derived from AF71, and comprised body sherds probably derived from large jars. A small fragment of a plain rounded rim was present, but there were no decorated or otherwise diagnostic sherds. Dating is therefore problematic. The fabric and joining sherds of what appears to be the neck of a large round-shouldered jar might, by comparison with assemblages from elsewhere in Essex (e.g. Brown 1988; Wymer and Brown 1995), suggest a date within the first half of the 1st millennium B.C.

18

FIG.

STANWAY: AN ÉLITE BURIAL SITE AT CAMULODUNUM

11.

Neolithic and Bronze Age pottery (scale 1:3)

TABLE

2:

LIST OF ILLUSTRATED NEOLITHIC POTTERY

FIG. 11

Context

Description

Fabric

1

CF6

Peterborough Ware ?Mortlake bowl. Body and round base sherd. Rows of cord impressions arranged in herringbone pattern.

O

2

CF6

Peterborough Ware rim of Mortlake bowl. Row of cord impressions inside rim, and arranged in herringbone pattern on top of rim. Inside edge of rim also impressed. Part of two finger impressions survive on exterior of neck.

O

3

AF16

Peterborough Ware, neck/shoulder sherd of Mortlake bowl. Finger impressions on neck. Row of cord impressions on shoulder.

L

DISCUSSION The Peterborough Ware from Stanway is decorated with a combination of impressed cord and finger impressions. These forms of decoration are common in Peterborough Ware assemblages and occur at the Springfield Cursus (Brown 2001). However, in most local groups cord decoration is less common than finger-tip and finger-nail impression (e.g. ibid.; Brown 2003). The use of quartz as a tempering agent for Peterborough pottery is frequent and widespread, and may well have had ritual or symbolic implications (Gibson 1995). One sherd from CF6 has a burnt deposit/residue adhering to the surface, presumably the result of use as a cooking pot. The material from both CF6 and AF16 is largely unabraded; this is of some interest, since the Peterborough Ware from CF6 was residual in an Iron Age ditch. It may be that the material was accidentally incorporated from an earlier feature cut by the ditch. Alternatively it may have been deliberately deposited in the ditch during the Iron Age, presumably having been uncovered during the creation of the Iron Age enclosures; apparent reverence for earlier artefacts, particularly Bronze Age metalwork, is quite well known in the Iron Age. The sherds from AF71, which probably belong to the earlier 1st millennium B.C.,+ lack diagnostic features but are unabraded and appear to have been deposited soon after breakage. Such material commonly occurs on settlement sites of the period which are quite common in east Essex (e.g. Brown 1996). THE SCATTER OF HEAT-AFFECTED STONE ACROSS THE SITE (FIG. 12; TABLES 3–4) (incorporating a note and TABLE 3 by Keith Oak) The weight of heat-affected stones from the excavations is around 80–100 kg. Almost all of them came from the west side of the site, especially the features inside Enclosure 1, although precise numbers are not available for every context (FIG. 12, TABLE 3). The stones are mainly small and rounded, some having split in the heat. The whole ones are mostly naturally rounded (fluvio-glacial) small cobbles, commonly described as ‘potboilers’. On average these stones are between about 50–70 mm, measured on the longest dimension. They are predominantly of two

FEATURES AND FINDS PRE-DATING THE MIDDLE IRON AGE FARMSTEAD

FIG.

12.

19

Distribution of burnt stones by weight

stone types, i.e. sandstones/quartzite and flint. They are bigger than the stones which occur naturally in the underlying sand and gravels, which suggests that the largest ones, and hence presumably others, had been individually selected and had not been scorched accidentally by fires on the ground as might otherwise have been the case. The pits AF24, AF76 and CF174 account for around half (about 41.2 kg) the total weight of the heat-affected stones. The groups of stones from these three pits (TABLE 4) consist of approximately 90% sandstones/quartzites and 10% flint. The composition of the remainder of the burnt stones from the site is almost exactly the reverse, being approximately 85% flint and 15% sandstones/quartzites. Flint makes up at least 95% of the local gravel deposits yet, in the three pit deposits, the equivalent figures are 2%, 8% and 12% respectively. Thus the stone from the pits reveals a deliberate policy of collecting well- or moderately cemented sandstones. Such stone types (quartzites) are mechanically strong and have survived being transported by glaciers and deposited by fluvio-glacial rivers. They were carefully selected because their thermal properties made them more suitable for pot-boilers than the ubiquitous flint pebble. The quartzites tend to be homogeneous and thus, when heated and rapidly cooled, generally expand and contract evenly and do not crack. Glacially derived flint, on the other hand, tends to have micro-fractures that are exploited by the expansion and contraction and so flint tends to shatter when heated in a fire, which makes such pebbles unsuitable for use as pot-boilers. Sandstone

20

STANWAY: AN ÉLITE BURIAL SITE AT CAMULODUNUM

TABLE

3:

HEAT-AFFECTED STONES AND THE DATING EVIDENCE FOR THEM

Feature

Context

Date of latest pottery

Weight (kg)

Enclosure 1 AF24 AF26 AF27 AF28 AF30 AF34 AF54 AF57 AF58 AF65 AF76 AF80 ploughsoil

pit pit pit pit pit pit small pit small pit small pit small pit small pit pit unstratified

– Middle Iron Age Middle Iron Age Early to Middle Iron Age – – Middle Iron Age Middle Iron Age Middle Iron Age – – Middle Iron Age n/a

29.20